Subject:
|
Re: Planning, not arguments, please (was Re: [DISC] Shortcircuit eBay?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.auction
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:18:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
847 times
|
| |
|
|
John DiRienzo wrote:
> The sniper has a valid argument in this scenario. He may say that he
> put in a proxy bid of $200, and the snipee had placed a bid of $150,
> thus the sniper won at $155. Then when I tell the sniper that he has
> not won, because of the rule outlined in my description, but that the
> snipee has won at $150, then where does this lead? Obviously he
> would be angry since his proxy was much higher than what the
> snipee is going to pay for the item.
The valid counter-argument is that if the sniper followed the rules of this
particular auction, the problem would not have occurred. As in a sport,
rules are present to encourage a fair match. Occasionally, a trivial
violation leads to a penalty that seems out of proportion to the crime
and results in an outcome which fans decry as unjust/unfair. The
justification for this system is that in the long run it encourages
behavior among the competitors that leads to a better, more optimal
outcome. Ultimately, the only way to deter unwanted behavior is to
establish a disincentive and be prepared to enforce your standards.
Perhaps in your next auction the sniper will bid $200 with 24 hours left
and the final price will end up at $205.
Changing gears.....
A different option might be to set a reserve well above what you
would expect the final price to be. In the auction announcement
state that any sniping will cause you to re-list the auction for an
extended 'overtime" period. The primary downside I see to this is
the lack of a binding contract between the seller and the bidder in
the original auction (because of the reserve price) or in the overtime
session (technically a new auction.)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
59 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
